About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
the charges, miranda rights, the public safety exemption, where are we right now on that issue? >> well, the normal rule is that when someone's irsed, they're advised of their rights. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can be used against you. you have the right to a lawyer. if you can't afford one it will be provided, that sort of thing. if police don't give that warning then they cannot use any statements of the defendant in court. the exception to that is called the public safety exception. it's been extended by judges to terrorism cases. and the idea is that if you need information quickly to preserve public safety, you can ask those questions and still use the responses in court. but that public safety exception rule is limited. it only applies for several hours after fill in the blank. we assume after questioning starts rather than after arrest. probably no more than a day, day and a half. >> where do you come up with that? pete, let me interrupt you there. who has come up with what is the time? is it just, you know it when you see it? >> in terms of the time li
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the whole case falls out unless everything -- >> so it's not the poison fruit thing? >> there is a poison fruit provision, standard. but it's very rare for it to pollute an entire case. >> let me ask you practically, why don't the law enforcement officials, the federal officials up there who have him in custody at the hospital, why didn't they just
enforcement. we know that doesn't quite work for several reasons. one, there is an exception in the miranda rights. when a suspect is read their rights by the police, we're talking about a miranda warning. there is a provision that allows in case law that allows for law enforcement to wait if they think there is a national security threat or a danger to the public until they've talked to the person and established there isn't a danger to the public or gotten the information they need. then they can read the miranda rights. that's what the fbi has done in this case. that's what they did in the new york time square bomber. that worked quite well. they talk to him for a while before they read him his rights. then they read him his rights. he kept and he provided very valuable information. we know that the traditional civilian court system founded by the founding fathers can work in this situation. >> let me ask you a couple questions. if the russian government was so concerned about tamerlan as to alert our fbi and our government, and warrant an investigation of him, why are we so sure that dz
be read his miranda rights. moving past the politics of it because it seems to get a little poe lit kal, as a former member of fbi how does whether or not the suspect is read his miranda rights influence or impact your investigation? >> it really becomes irrelevant. good report-based interviewers and interrogators who are the ones most effective. the fbi doesn't do that because we're nice. we do that because it worked. in reported based interviewers miranda they can read that and continue. it is not a major obstacle. it is almost irrelevant. jenna: really? we're hearing a it is a major issue whether we get to the bottom of this investigation. so what should we consider as we continue to hear the debate ongoing over the next several days? >> it doesn't, it really doesn't make that much difference to the interviewers and especially the particular group of profile he is -- profilers they developed at quantico, at the fbi academy. this is not terribly relevant. they can sit down with the people. they can interview them. they look for behavioral cues. they look for a way to establish a relat
analyst. the 19-year-old has not been read his miranda rights. why does this matter what has it allowed for? what is the issue here? >> a lot of variables here, the question is he in any kwan condition to answer questions with or without miranda? what is his health situation? also, even if he doesn't get miranda warnings, he may decline to answer questions in any case. they can't force him to answer questions, but if he does not receive miranda warnings and if he then anticipates questions those answers cannot be used in a criminal case against him. they can be used for intelligence gathering. they can be used if there are other conspirators who may be prosecuted, can't be used against him. other evidence can be used against him. may be lots of other evidence. if you don't get miranda warnings, your statements i can't be used against you. >> so this is a sensitive issue. another sensitive issue raised by republican senators, lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, peter king, they released a statement, the suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combat tant status.
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
and lucid enough to get his miranda rights read to him, also thoughts he shot himself through the neck, that's been really brought into question now, as an eyewitness there to help take him down, looks like a cut or maybe something exploded, a shrapnel cut, those that the boston marathon, those that suffered during the explosion. he said i'm motivated by religion, that religion being islamic extremism or islam. he went on to say i have no outside ties. i'm not part of a larger group. isn't that convenient. >>steve: both brothers went to a mosque in cambridge. it was the older brother. clearly the younger brother was following the older brother in life in so many different ways. we told you a little bit yesterday about some of the outbursts the older brother had at the mosque in cambridge. for instance, back in november where they were talking about it was okay for muslims to celebrate american holidays like thanksgiving and the 4th of july and tamerlan, the older brother, stood up and argued. then in january there was a praise for martin luther king jr. and he got up and called someone a hyp
with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)